Rachel Maddow says Romney told a lie to donors about Ronald Reagan's presidency to excuse himself for opting out of foreign policy during his administration, and that sends up a huge warning flag.

Some of Romney's foreign policy advisers told the NYT they wonder if he reads their briefings. Rachel says Romney's statements (or lack of them) during Monday night's debate reveal that he would lead us into dangerous George W. Bush-style territory on foreign policy during his administation.

Comments

The last time we saw that blank a stare from a republican was Bush's when he was told about the crash into the WTC on 9/11.

Another fool who thought leaving the foreign policy up to a committee of profiteers made good sense.

And in Romney's case, the SAME profiteers.

Reminded me also of Reagan--Alzheimer's Reagan. Is 48% of the country serious?

Posted by: Sean in Dallas | Oct 24, 2012 9:49:23 AM

Of course he doesn't care. Unless he can start another war there is no money to be made from foreign politics.

Posted by: Steve | Oct 24, 2012 10:22:30 AM

I think that Rachel Maddow is the brightest and most insightful talking head on T V.

Posted by: andrew | Oct 24, 2012 10:50:17 AM

And on 9/11 Bush II thought it was more important to finish reading a book to children.

Three cheers Maddow!

Another clear summary of Romney on foreign policy:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/22/1054581/a-comprehensive-timeline-of-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-positions-during-the-campaign/

Posted by: Diogenes Arktos | Oct 24, 2012 11:15:11 AM

Then there's the Obama record on foreign policy:

Our Ambassador in Libya asks for protection, and is refused. (Valerie Jarrett goes on vacation to the Hamptons and gets full Secret Service detail...) Our Embassy in Libya is attacked, and the White House receives word immediately about who was responsible. Obama blames a YouTube video.

Obama lied; people died.

Posted by: anon | Oct 24, 2012 11:52:14 AM

@Anon
You're the one who is lying. They only asked for additional security in Tripoli. Not in Benghazi.

Posted by: Steve | Oct 24, 2012 12:00:12 PM

"Our Embassy in Libya is attacked, and the White House receives word immediately about who was responsible"

Your embassy in Libya was not attacked.

I suppose right-wingers might have a definiton of a consulate as a mini-embassy, but these Archie Bunker brain idiots wouldn't know that--they just keep saying it was the US Embassy (which is in Tripoli, not Benghazi).

And just what did Republicans in Congress do about funding for the State Department so it could hire more security for its embassies and consulates? They cut funding (the miserable motha' f.ckas).

The president called the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi "an act of terror" the next day. There was still confusion in the administration (and the rest of f.cking world) about what caused the violence. In other Islamic cities there were protest about the stupid video-- so why wouldn't it have played a part in the Benghazi protest?

The irony is that the wretched conservative Republicans want to turn this tragedy into a political issue, but in reality they had no respect for the US Ambassador to Libya.

Chris Stevens was a man who actually cared about other people on this planet. He didn't look down on people because of their religion or skin color.

Ambassador Stevens was the complete opposite to the right-wing garbage now trying use his death to elect Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney Conservatives don't give a damn about anybody except the welfare of bankers in the Switzerland.